The putative class action was brought by Suk Cheung, ScottHeiss, and Michael Zoitas on behalf of all persons and entitieswho purchased the common stock of A123 Systems, Inc., betweenFebruary 28, 2011, and March 26, 2012. The proposed class wasallegedly duped by misrepresentations disseminated by defendantsin violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. The Defendants are formerhigh ranking officers of A123: David P. Vieau, Chief ExecutiveOfficer; David J. Prystash, Chief Financial Officer; and John R.Granara III, Interim Chief Financial Officer.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complainton the grounds that it fails to allege (1) any actionable omissionor misstatement; (2) scienter; or (3) loss-related causation.

Judge Stearns ruled that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet theirburden of pleading fraud against the individual defendants withthe particularity demanded by the Private Securities LitigationReform Act of 1995 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Consequently, theSection 10(b) claim will be dismissed, he said.

Moreover, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the ConsolidatedAmended Complaint is allowed but the Plaintiffs may file a secondamended complaint on or before April 4, 2013.

A copy of the District Court's March 14, 2013 Memorandum and Orderis available at http://is.gd/DIMC8ofrom Leagle.com.

ALTOONA, PA: Housing Authority Clients Can Sue as "Class"---------------------------------------------------------Phil Ray, writing for The Altoona Mirror, reports that a federaljudge ruled on March 11 that clients of the Altoona HousingAuthority who have had their benefits terminated can sue as a"class," a decision that could change the way the agency enforcesits rules governing the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.

According to U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson in Johnstown, 33families are included in the class that he certified for trial,but, as he emphasized, whatever decision is made in the case willaffect hundreds of present and future authority clients. JudgeGibson's 14-page opinion reinforced a decision he made in Augustallowing a class-action lawsuit. The authority had asked thejudge to reconsider that ruling.

The authority's attorney, John C. Hansberry of Pittsburgh, claimedthat the "class" really only includes 15 families that meet allthe criteria raised in a lawsuit filed more than two years ago byAshley Thompson, a young mother, and Deborah and David Sills, anolder couple.

Both families had their benefits terminated because they allegedlyallowed unauthorized individuals to stay at their Section 8 homes.Both families deny doing anything wrong. The two families contendthe hearing process used by the authority to strip them of theirhousing vouchers violated their civil rights. They are beingrepresented by Pittsburgh attorney Kevin Quisenberry of theCommunity Justice Project, which seeks to protect the rights oflow income people.

Judge Gibson concluded on March 11 that while the authoritycontends the number of families potentially harmed by the hearingprocess is small and thus should not be considered as a class, hestated the argument "fails to account for the hundreds of currentand future program participants potentially subject to thechallenged practices."

The judge also noted those suing "lack the resources to affordeven suitable housing (hence the enrollment in the Program) in thefirst place, and, therefore, it would be impracticable if notfinancially impossible for them to bring individual actions toenforce their rights." He said, "Moreover, judicial economyfavors a single adjudication as to the legality of the defendants'practices or policies over a multiplicity of suits seeking answersto the same legal questions."

Mr. Hansberry said the decision means, "It's time for theplaintiffs to prove their case."

A date for the trial is up to the judge.

Mr. Quisenberry was not available for comment on March 12.

The dispute between the two families and the authority came to ahead just before Christmas two years ago when the authorityattempted to evict Thompson, then 19 and the mother of two youngchildren, and the Sills family from their residences.

Thompson allegedly allowed the father of one of her children tostay at her residence while the Sills supposedly permitted Mrs.Sills' ill mother to stay at the family home.

The two families were granted hearings, but they charged in theirlawsuit that the authority hearing officer researched the case andused facts which they never had an opportunity to answer indeciding to strip them of their vouchers. The evictions of thetwo families have been put on hold until the court disposes of thelawsuit.

The authority has denied anything improper occurred.

Judge Gibson stated last summer that the class-action claimsinclude the following issues:

* Only written evidence could be considered at a hearing.

* The authority notified clients it was their burden to provewhy they should not be terminated and thus shifting the burden ofproof during the hearings to the clients.

* Terminating benefits based on hearsay evidence.

* Using a non-neutral decision-maker to rule on the issues.

* Basing decisions at least in part on evidence collectedafter the hearings.

* Failing to comply with the authority's own rules whenterminating benefits.

AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Red Light Camera Class Action Settlement Nears----------------------------------------------------------------David Porter, writing for Associated Press, reports that arepresentative of the company that installs and operates NewJersey's controversial red light cameras had some good news formotorists on March 11, not that any were around to hear it duringa proceeding attended only by a gaggle of attorneys in the sterileenvironment of a federal courtroom.

If you see a flash go off as you drive through an intersection andyou're sure you beat the red light, you're probably right,Charles Callari said. It's more than likely a diagnostic testbeing performed by Scottsdale, Arizona-based American TrafficSolutions to reset the cameras.

Anyway, Mr. Callari, an ATS vice president said, about 50 percentof the pictures snapped at intersections don't result in summonsesafter going through a required review by local police.

The cameras installed in nearly two dozen towns in New Jersey haveraked in millions of dollars but have generated an equal amount ofcontroversy. The March 11 hearing was an outgrowth of a lawsuitfiled last year by a Jackson Township resident who sued ATS andthe town of East Windsor after getting an $85 ticket.

John Telliho claimed the town operated the red light camerasillegally because it failed to follow requirements for the timingof yellow lights that would give motorists enough time to put onthe brakes.

A settlement has been proposed between ATS and Mr. Telliho andother plaintiffs as a class, but U.S. District Judge PeterSheridan requested that the parties convene on March 11 to givehim more information before he moves forward. The attorneys,including those representing several towns named as defendants,met in Sheridan's chambers briefly after Mr. Callari'spresentation.

The pilot program for the red light cameras came under fire fromthe moment it was approved in 2008 by some legislators whocriticized it as too intrusive and as a transparent ploy to raiserevenue for cash-strapped towns.

The criticism ratcheted up last June when the state Department ofTransportation temporarily suspended the red light cameras at 63of 85 intersections over concerns about the timing of the yellowlights. All were ultimately reactivated.

The plaintiffs claim East Windsor and other towns includingWoodbridge, Glassboro, Pohatcong, Brick, Cherry Hill and othersdidn't do the required testing for traffic speed to properly timethe yellow lights and should refund fines imposed up until theyretested the lights last June at the behest of the department oftransportation.

According to a court filing in late December, ATS agreed to pay$4.2 million to plaintiffs with valid claims but would not admitwrongdoing or liability. The towns would be removed asdefendants. An attorney for ATS didn't immediately return amessage seeking comment on March 11.

New Jersey motorists "continue to be screwed by the cameracompanies and the local governments which collude to steal fromthem." Mr. O'Scanlon e-mailed on March 11. "This settlementsells them down the river one more time -- and amounts to nothingmore than a get-rich-quick scheme for the attorneys involved."

BEN-LEE PROCESSING: Recalls Pork Products Over Lack of HACCP Plan-----------------------------------------------------------------Ben-Lee Processing, Inc., an Atwood, Kansas establishment, isrecalling an undetermined amount of ready-to-eat and heat-treatedbacon and ham products that were produced without a HazardAnalysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan, the U.S.Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service(FSIS) announced.

The recalled products are in consumer-sized packages in variousweights, and are wrapped in white butcher paper with the name andaddress of Ben-Lee as well as the mark of inspection and the nameof the product in a contrasting ink color.

The recalled products bear the establishment number "Est. 2366"inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were producedprior to March 14, 2013, and were distributed in northwest Kansasfor further distribution.

The problem was discovered by the Kansas State Department ofAgriculture in conjunction with FSIS. Some fully cooked productswere given the mark of inspection, but the company does not have aHACCP plan for fully cooked product. Further investigationrevealed that other Ready-To-Eat or heat-treated products wereproduced without HACCP plans. HACCP plans, in whichestablishments identify potential hazards associated with a givenproduct, and identify a means of addressing those hazards in theproduction process, are required for all products bearing the markof inspection.

FSIS and the Company have received no reports of illness at thistime. Anyone concerned about an illness from consumption of theseproducts should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinelyconducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recallingfirms notify their customers of the recall and that steps aretaken to make certain that the product is no longer available toconsumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contactTom Carroll, the Company's owner, at (785) 626-3732.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day athttp://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Fridayfrom 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDAMeat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) isavailable in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday. Recordedfood safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The onlineElectronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24hours a day at: http://is.gd/vlfH9I

BIG 5: Parties in Suits Over Credit Card Purchases in Mediation---------------------------------------------------------------Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation and other parties of aconsolidated class action lawsuit over credit card purchasesengaged in mandatory settlement conferences in February 2013,according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the yearended December 30, 2012.

The Company was served on the following dates with the followingnine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported classaction on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company'sstores in California using credit cards and were requested orrequired to provide personal identification information at thetime of the transaction:

On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued anOrder Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating theCalifornia Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as havingjurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases asCase No. JCCP4667. On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffscollectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, allegingviolations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion ofprivacy and unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs allege, amongother things, that customers making purchases with credit cards atthe Company's stores in California were improperly requested toprovide their zip code at the time of such purchases. Theplaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class members, the following:statutory penalties; attorneys' fees; costs; restitution ofproperty; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief.

On February 6, 2013, and February 19, 2013, the Company andplaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences conductedby the court in an effort to negotiate a settlement of thislitigation. In connection therewith, the Company received fromthe plaintiffs an offer to settle this litigation, which theCompany is currently considering. Based on the terms of thesettlement offer, the Company currently believes that a settlementof this litigation will not have a material negative impact on theCompany's results of operations or financial condition. However,if the plaintiffs and the Company are unable to negotiate asettlement, the Company says it intends to defend this litigationvigorously. If this litigation were to be resolved unfavorably tothe Company, such litigation and the costs of defending it couldhave a material negative impact on the Company's results ofoperations or financial condition.

El Segundo, California-based Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation --http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/-- is a sporting goods retailer in the western United States, operating stores in various statesunder the "Big 5 Sporting Goods" name. The Company provides afull-line product offering in a traditional sporting goods storeformat. The Company's product mix includes athletic shoes,apparel and accessories, as well as a broad selection of outdoorand athletic equipment for team sports, fitness, camping, hunting,fishing, tennis, golf, snowboarding and roller sports.

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss From Suit-------------------------------------------------------------CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision onplaintiffs' motion to dismiss certain defendants, includingCenterPoint Energy defendants, from their lawsuits pending inKansas court, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe year ended December 31, 2012.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.) and certain of itssubsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits broughtagainst approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliatespending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas. In one case(originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times), theplaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners whoallege that the defendants have engaged in systematicmismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25years. The plaintiffs amended their petition in this lawsuit inJuly 2003 in response to an order from the judge denyingcertification of the plaintiffs' alleged class. In the amendment,the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against certain defendants(including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the scope of theclass of plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminatedpreviously asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the Btucontent of the gas. The same plaintiffs then filed a secondlawsuit, again as representatives of a putative class of royaltyowners in which they assert their claims that the defendants haveengaged in systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of naturalgas for more than 25 years. In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seekcompensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, trebledamages, interest, costs and fees. In September 2009, thedistrict court in Stevens County, Kansas, denied plaintiffs'request for class certification of their case and, in March 2010,denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of that order.In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss certaindefendants from both lawsuits, including the remaining CenterPointEnergy defendants.

CERC believes that there has been no systematic mismeasurement ofgas and that these lawsuits are without merit. CERC andCenterPoint Energy do not expect the ultimate outcome of thelawsuits to have a material impact on the financial condition,results of operations or cash flows of either CenterPoint Energyor CERC.

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gas Markets--------------------------------------------------------------CenterPoint Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself againstlawsuits in connection with the operation of the natural gasmarkets in 2000 to 2002, according to the Company's February 27,2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC(CenterPoint Houston) or their predecessor, Reliant Energy,Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of their formersubsidiaries have been named as defendants in certain lawsuits.Under a master separation agreement between CenterPoint Energy anda former subsidiary, RRI (RRI Energy, Inc., Reliant Energy, Inc.and Reliant Resources, Inc.), CenterPoint Energy and itssubsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI and itssuccessors for any losses, including attorneys' fees and othercosts, arising out of these lawsuits. In May 2009, RRI sold itsTexas retail business to a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG)and RRI changed its name to RRI Energy, Inc. In December 2010,Mirant Corporation merged with and became a wholly ownedsubsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to GenOn Energy, Inc.(GenOn). In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn through a merger inwhich GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG. None of thesale of the retail business, the merger with Mirant Corporation,or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters RRI's (now GenOn's)contractual obligations to indemnify CenterPoint Energy and itssubsidiaries, including CenterPoint Houston, for certainliabilities, including their indemnification obligations regardingthe gas market manipulation litigation, nor does it affect theterms of existing guaranty arrangements for certain GenOn gastransportation contracts.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas marketparticipants in a number of federal and western state courts inconnection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-2002. CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was aparticipant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, allegeviolations of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs inthese lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in somecases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatorydamages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named inapproximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have sincebeen released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary ofCenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.), is a defendant ina case now pending in federal court in Nevada alleging aconspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.In July 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs'claims against the other defendants in the case, each of whom haddemonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)jurisdictional sales for resale during the relevant period, basedon federal preemption. The plaintiffs have appealed this rulingto the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuitfiled in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007, but inMarch 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the NevadaSupreme Court. In September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Courtaffirmed the dismissal. In October 2012, the Nevada Supreme Courtgranted the plaintiffs' motion to stay the dismissal of this casepending the filing and final disposition of their petition for awrit of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. InDecember 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ ofcertiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. OnJanuary 4, 2013, the Supreme Court removed the case from itsdocket since the plaintiffs' petition exceeded the applicable wordlimit. In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a correctedpetition with the Supreme Court.

CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a properdefendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursuedismissal from those cases. CenterPoint Energy does not expectthe ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a materialimpact on its financial condition, results of operations or cashflows.

CINNABAR SERVICE: Judge Certifies Picher Residents' Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Susan Hylton, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a Tulsa judgecertified class-action status on March 12 to 265 former Picherresidents who claim that appraisers undervalued their propertiesduring the federal relocation process. Associate District JudgeDana Kuehn said in her ruling that the actual loss in value foreach property does not have to be proven to a jury, only thequestion of whether there was a conspiracy among the appraisersand the insurance companies to defraud the plaintiffs by low-balling the appraisals and forcing the property owners to acceptthe low rate.

Defendant Cinnabar Service Co. Inc., the lead appraiser, hasargued that the appraisal process was conducted properly and thatthere was no conspiracy to defraud the property owners bypressuring them to accept lower values, records show.

The court denied Cinnabar's request to dismiss the case in March2012.

Attorneys with the Barber & Bartz law firm representing Cinnabarhad no comment.

The case was filed in 2009 and is now consolidated with an OttawaCounty case in which plaintiffs initially sued the Lead-ImpactedCommunities Relocation Assistance Trust, the public trust that wasformed in June 2006 to administer the funds for relocation.

Plaintiffs attorney Jeff Marr of Oklahoma City said the trust andthose named individually -- Larry Roberts, who was the operationsmanager for the trust, and J.D. Strong, the former state Secretaryof the Environment -- will no longer be defendants in the case.

"The trust made it clear that they relied on Cinnabar to do theappraisals and that they expected Cinnabar to adhere to USPAP (theUniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice)," Mr. Marrsaid. "The trust didn't object to the certification (for class-action status)."

The 265 plaintiffs include Johnny LaFalier, Patty Lafalier, MissyBeets and many others. Besides Cinnabar, other defendants are VanTuyl & Associates, a Tulsa appraisal firm, and numerous insuranceagencies including Allstate and State Farm.

The plaintiffs lived within the Tar Creek Superfund site and werepart of a $60 million federal buyout of homes and businesses in2006. The heavily undermined town became unsafe due to the numberof cave-ins and lead exposure, especially in children. Picher wasonce the center of the largest lead and zinc mining operation inthe world. There were 878 buyout offers with a 96% acceptancerate, trust chairman Mark Osborn said in 2011.

"These people felt really helpless when they went in and weregiven offers individually, one at a time," Mr. Marr said. "It waspresented as a take-it-or-leave-it offer. They said the buyoutwas voluntary, but it's hard to consider it voluntary when thetown is being disassembled."

The plaintiffs allege that Cinnabar hastily conducted theappraisals and treated them unfairly. They also allege thecompany practiced favoritism towards those linked to the trust andworked secretly with the insurance companies to pressure residentsto accept low-rate offers. Some of the plaintiffs believe theirbuyouts were wrongly reduced because they received money fromtheir insurance agencies and the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency when their homes were damaged or destroyed by a tornadothat ripped through the town on May 10, 2008.

Mr. Marr said that the class-action suit will save clients moneyand time, and will prevent inconsistent rulings had each case beentried individually.

"I'm glad to finally now be able to move forward in litigation ofthe matter," Mr. Marr said.

Wally Kennedy, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that thejudge scheduled Monday, April 1, as the date of a schedulingconference. No trial date has been set. The ruling created achain reaction of telephone calls as word spread on March 12 amongthe property owners who are part of the class.

"I just got a call and heard that they had ruled in our favor,"said Mr. LaFalier. "It's good news coming."

Mr. LaFalier said it has taken a long time to get to this point,but that the attorneys representing the property owners made thatclear from the start.

"When they took my deposition a while back, I was told by JohnWiggins (one of the lawyers) to put it on the shelf because it wasgoing to take a while," Mr. LaFalier said. "He said he'd let meknow when I should wipe the dust off of it."

Mr. LaFalier said the property owners are hopeful that theirattorneys will make such a compelling argument for their positionthat the defendants will move to settle out of court to avoid acostly and time-consuming trial.

"I hope they can reach a settlement for actual and punitivedamages," he said. "We're all getting old now, and a trial wouldbe hard on us. But, for the first time in a long time, we have asense of hope. Whatever we get is a plus we didn't have before."

John Frazier, another Picher resident who was relocated in the $45million buyout, said: "I just heard about it. I think it's great.Anyone with any common sense will be able to see that a lot ofhouses were too high and that even more houses were too low.

"When people see the pictures of the houses and their appraisals,they can't believe there was that much difference in theappraisals."

Mr. Frazier said that if the case goes to trial, he thinks theproperty owners would have a good chance of winning. "With all ofthe documentation we've got, well, the pictures speak forthemselves," he said.

The officers of the trust have countered the allegations withstatements that everyone was treated equally, that fair priceswere paid, and that friends of trust officials were not givenpreferential treatment. More than 700 pieces of property wereinvolved in the buyout.

Trust officials also say that the majority of Picher's relocatedresidents received fair deals or they would not have accepted thebuyout offers. Some residents have said they accepted what theycharacterized as "take-it-or-leave-it" offers because they thoughtit might be their only chance to get something for theirproperties.

Patsy Huffman, another participant in the buyout, said: "I'mthankful for the class action. How would all of these people beenable to go to court if they had to go one at a time?"

Mr. Marr, an Oklahoma City attorney who is representing theproperty owners, said the judge did "an excellent job of cuttingthrough the issues to get to the heart of it." He said theproperty owners now have the "opportunity to go forward in asingle, unified action. They are now stronger going forward toright this wrong."

Missy Beets, a former Picher resident, was selected to be therepresentative for the class because her appraisal was deemed atypical example of the alleged mishandling of appraisals. If thelawyers fail to convince a jury that the alleged mishandling wasdeliberate, then all of the other cases will fail as well.

Joe Fears, Esq. -- JFears@BarberBartz.com -- an attorney withBarber & Bartz, of Tulsa, who is representing Cinnabar ServiceCo., one of the appraisal companies named in the lawsuit, couldnot be reached for comment Tuesday.

Mr. Marr said he hopes a trial will be held this year. "We intendto push for it. It's doable," he said. "The people have waitedlong enough."

Trust Formation

The Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust wasformed in 2006 after a study by the Army Corps of Engineers foundthat the abandoned mines under Picher, Cardin and Hockerville hada high risk of caving in.

COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Wage and Hour Suit in California-------------------------------------------------------------Cogent Communications Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuitin California alleging violations of wage and hour laws, accordingto the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,2012.

Certain former sales employees of the Company filed a collectiveaction against the Company in December 2011 in the United StatesDistrict Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,alleging misclassification of the Company's sales employeesthroughout the U.S. in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.The lawsuit seeks to recover pay for allegedly unpaid overtime andother damages, including attorney's fees. In January 2013, aformer sales employee filed in the Superior Court of Santa ClaraCounty, California, a lawsuit alleging misclassification of salesemployees under California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit seekscertification as a class action and seeks to recover pay forallegedly unpaid overtime and other damages, including attorney'sfees. The Company denies both claims and believes that the claimsfor unpaid overtime in each case are without merit. The Companybelieves its classification of sales employees is in compliancewith applicable law.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Cogent Communications Group,Inc. -- http://www.cogentco.com/-- is a facilities-based provider of low-cost, high-speed Internet access and Internet Protocolcommunications services. The Company delivers its servicesprimarily to small and medium-sized businesses, communicationsservice providers and other bandwidth-intensive organizations inNorth America and Europe.

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Community Health Systems, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on itsmotion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit pending inTennessee, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2012.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community HealthSystems, Inc., et al., filed May 5, 2011; De Zheng v. CommunityHealth Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and MinneapolisFirefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,et al., filed June 2, 2011. All three seek class certification onbehalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, and allege that misleadingstatements resulted in artificially inflated prices for theCompany's common stock. In December 2011, the cases wereconsolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counselwere selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. TheCompany's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed andis pending before the court. The Company believes thisconsolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defendthis case.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a publicly-traded operator of hospitals in the United States. Itprovides healthcare services through the hospitals that it ownsand operates in non-urban and selected urban markets. Itgenerates revenues by providing a broad range of general andspecialized hospital and other outpatient healthcare services topatients in the communities in which it is located. The Companyis headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.

CRANE CO: Has Provisional Pact to Settle Merrimac-Related Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Crane Co. reached a provisional agreement to resolve , accordingto the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition ofMerrimac was filed in the Superior Court of the State of NewJersey. The action, brought by a purported stockholder ofMerrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac's directors, and CraneCo. as defendants, and alleges, among other things, breaches offiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors, aided and abetted byCrane Co., that resulted in the payment to Merrimac stockholdersof an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per share in theacquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac's directors. Thecomplaint seeks certification as a class of all Merrimacstockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates, andunspecified damages. Simultaneously with the filing of thecomplaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin thetransaction from proceeding. After a hearing on January 14, 2010,the court denied the plaintiff's motion. All defendants thereafterfiled motions seeking dismissal of the complaint on variousgrounds.

After a hearing on March 19, 2010, the court denied thedefendants' motions to dismiss and ordered the case to proceed topretrial discovery. All defendants have filed their answers anddeny any liability. The Court certified the class, and the partiesengaged in pre-trial discovery. Fact discovery closed in July2012, and expert discovery, including the exchange of expertreports and depositions of expert witnesses, closed on November30, 2012. Summary judgment motions were due to be submitted on orbefore January 15, 2013. However, on December 26, 2012,plaintiff's counsel proposed a settlement figure that wassubstantially less than had previously been proposed. This led tonegotiations which culminated, on January 11, 2013, in anagreement, in principle, to resolve the case on the followingterms, which are subject to Court approval.

In consideration of the establishment of a settlement fund in theamount of $2 million, to be funded almost entirely from theinsurance policy covering the former officers and directors ofMerrimac, and with a single contribution of $150,000 by Crane Co.,the plaintiffs agreed (1) to withdraw the single claim asserted inthe Complaint against Crane Co., (2) that all plaintiff'sattorney's fees and expenses associated with the case will comefrom the settlement amount, and (3) that all costs of notificationof the settlement to the members of the class, costs related tothe distribution of pro rata amounts to class members, and anyother administrative costs, will also come from the settlementamount. In addition, all defendants, including Crane Co., willreceive full class-wide releases. On January 15, 2013, with theconsent of counsel for Crane Co. and the other defendants,plaintiff's counsel notified the Court that the parties hadreached a provisional agreement to resolve the case, subject tocourt approval, and asked that the case be stayed for all purposesexcept for settlement-related proceedings.

DEWEY & LEBOEUF: Ex-Employees' WARN Class Action Can Proceed------------------------------------------------------------Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that former Dewey &LeBoeuf LLP employees who claim they were not given proper noticeof their May 2012 layoffs will officially move forward as a classaction, according to a New York bankruptcy court filing onMarch 8. The lawsuit was filed last May claiming Dewey, whichobtained court approval of its liquidation plan late last month,violated the New York state and federal Worker Adjustment andRetraining Notification Acts when it laid off about 550 employeesshortly before it entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

ECOLAB INC: Reached Preliminary Settlement in "Ladore" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Ecolab Inc. in February 2013 reached a preliminary settlement withthe plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Doug Ladorev. Ecolab Inc., et al., in California, according to the Company'sForm 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in seven wage hourlawsuits claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act("FLSA") or a similar state law. One of the cases, Doug Ladore v.Ecolab Inc., et al., United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California, case no. CV 11-9386 GAF (FMOx), is aputative wage hour class action brought on behalf of CaliforniaPest Elimination employees. The case has been certified for classtreatment, and on January 22, 2013, the plaintiffs' motion forsummary judgment was granted and the court found that the class ofemployees was entitled to overtime pay. On February 22, 2013, wereached a preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs, whichremains subject to court approval.

"There can be no assurance that other pending or future wage hourlawsuits can be successfully defended or settled."

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries are defendants in pendinglawsuits alleging negligence and injury resulting from the use ofour COREXIT dispersant in response to the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, which could expose us to monetary damages or settlementcosts. On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, theDeepwater Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP plc, sank in theGulf of Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that beganon April 20, 2010. A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately oneweek following the incident, subsidiaries of BP plc, under theauthorization of the responding federal agencies, formallyrequested our indirect subsidiary, Nalco Company, to supply largequantities of COREXIT 9500, a Nalco oil dispersant product listedon the U.S. EPA National Contingency Plan Product Schedule. NalcoCompany responded immediately by providing available COREXIT andincreasing production to supply the product to BP's subsidiariesfor use, as authorized and directed by agencies of the federalgovernment.

"Nalco Company and certain affiliates (collectively "Nalco") wasnamed as a defendant in a series of class action and individualplaintiff lawsuits arising from this event. The plaintiffs inthese matters claimed damages under products liability, tort andother theories. Nalco was also named as a third party defendant incertain matters. Nalco was indemnified in these matters byanother of the defendants.

"All but one of these cases have been administratively transferredto a judge in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Louisiana with other related cases under In Re: OilSpill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, onApril 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) (the "MDL"). Theremaining case is Franks v. Sea Tow of South Miss, Inc., et al,Cause No. A2402-10-228 (Circuit Court of Harrison CountyMississippi) (the "Remaining Case").

"Nalco Company, the incident defendants and the other responderdefendants have been named as third party defendants by TransoceanDeepwater Drilling, Inc. and its affiliates (the "TransoceanEntities") (In re the Complaint and Petition of Triton AssetLeasing GmbH, et al, MDL No. 2179, Civil Action 10-2771). In Apriland May 2011, the Transocean Entities, Cameron InternationalCorporation, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., M-I L.L.C.,Weatherford U.S., L.P. and Weatherford International, Inc.(collectively, the "Cross Claimants") filed cross claims in MDL2179 against Nalco Company and other unaffiliated crossdefendants. The Cross Claimants generally allege, among otherthings, that if they are found liable for damages resulting fromthe Deepwater Horizon explosion, oil spill and/or spill response,they are entitled to indemnity or contribution from the crossdefendants.

"On November 28, 2012, the Federal Court in the MDL entered anorder dismissing all claims against Nalco. Because claims remainpending against other defendants, the Court's decision is not a"final judgment" for purposes of appeal. Plaintiffs will have 30days after entry of final judgment to appeal the Court's decision.Nalco will request that the Remaining Case be similarly dismissedfor the reasons accepted in the MDL. We cannot predict whetherthere will be an appeal of the dismissal, the involvement we mighthave in these matters in the future or the potential for futurelitigation. However, if an appeal by plaintiffs in these lawsuitsis brought and won, or if the remaining state court case is notdismissed, these suits could have a material adverse affect on ourconsolidated result of operations, financial position and cashflows."

EL PASO PIPELINE: Unitholder Continues to Defend "Allen" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.'s unitholder continues to defenditself in the lawsuit captioned, Allen v. El Paso Pipeline GPCompany, L.L.C., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In May 2012, a unitholder of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.(EPB) filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court,alleging both derivative and non derivative claims, against EPB,and EPB's general partner and its board. EPB was named in thelawsuit as both a "Class Defendant" and a "Derivative NominalDefendant." The complaint alleges a breach of the duty of goodfaith and fair dealing in connection with the March 2011 sale toEPB of a 25% ownership interest in SNG. Defendants' motion todismiss was denied. Defendants continue to believe this action iswithout merit and intend to defend against it vigorously.

FPL FOOD: Recalls 5,820 Pounds of All Natural Ground Beef Chuck---------------------------------------------------------------FPL Food, LLC, a West Columbia, S.C. establishment, is recallingapproximately 5,820 pounds of ground beef chuck that may containsmall pieces of plastic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's FoodSafety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The establishment number "EST 332B" and the sell by date"03/27/2013" are inkjetted on each package. The products werepackaged on March 7, 2013, and were sold in retail stores inFlorida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

The problem was discovered after the Company received threeconsumer complaints. The pieces of plastic are believed to bepieces of a blue plastic liner that covers source material used toproduce the final ground product. FSIS and the Company havereceived no reports of injury at this time. Anyone concernedabout an injury from consumption of these products should contacta healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify thatrecalling firms notify their customers of the recall and thatsteps are taken to make certain that the product is no longeravailable to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contactFPL Food Customer Service at (706) 922-3920.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSISvirtual representative available 24 hours a day athttp://www.AskKaren.gov/or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Fridayfrom 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The toll-free USDAMeat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) isavailable in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday. Recordedfood safety messages are available 24 hours a day. Forinformation on how to report a problem with a meat, poultry orprocessed egg product to FSIS at any time, visithttp://is.gd/vlfH9I

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Summary Judgment Bid Pending in Dividend Suit---------------------------------------------------------------General Electric Company has a pending motion for judgment in aconsolidated class action lawsuit related to statements regardingthe GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for GeneralElectric Capital Corporation in 2009, according to the Company'sForm 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In March and April 2009, shareholders filedpurported class actions under the federal securities laws in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New Yorknaming as defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including ourchief executive officer and chief financial officer) and ourdirectors. The complaints, which have now been consolidated, seekunspecified damages based on allegations related to statementsregarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings forGECC in 2009. In January 2012, the District Court granted in part,and denied in part, our motion to dismiss. In April 2012, theDistrict Court granted a portion of our motion forreconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of plaintiffs' claimsunder the Securities Act of 1933. In July 2012, the DistrictCourt denied plaintiffs' motion seeking to amend their complaintto include the alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933. InJanuary 2013, plaintiffs attempted unsuccessfully to file a newamended complaint. We have filed a motion for judgment on thepleadings."

GENON ENERGY: Defends Consolidated Suits Over Acquisition by NRG----------------------------------------------------------------GenOn Energy, Inc. continues to defend itself against consolidatedclass action lawsuits arising from its acquisition by NRG Energy,Inc., according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2012.

On December 14, 2012, NRG Energy, Inc., completed the acquisitionof GenOn. NRG issued, as consideration for the acquisition,0.1216 shares of NRG common stock for each outstanding share ofGenOn, including restricted stock units outstanding, on theacquisition date, except for fractional shares which were paid incash.

GenOn has been named as a defendant in eight purported classactions pending in Texas and Delaware, related to its announcementof its agreement for NRG to acquire all outstanding shares ofGenOn. These cases have been consolidated into one state courtcase in each of Delaware and Texas and a federal court case inTexas. The plaintiffs generally allege breach of fiduciaryduties, as well as conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches offiduciary duties. Plaintiffs are generally seeking to: becertified as a class; enjoin the merger; direct the defendant toexercise their fiduciary duties; rescind the acquisition and beawarded attorneys' fees and costs and other relief that the courtdeems appropriate. Plaintiffs have demanded that there beadditional disclosures regarding the merger terms. On October 24,2012, the parties to the Delaware state court case executed aMemorandum of Understanding to resolve the Delaware purportedclass action lawsuit.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc.-- http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary, and other energy services to wholesale customers in the energymarket in the United States. It also operates as a wholesalegenerator of electricity; and involves in asset management andproprietary trading, fuel oil management, and natural gastransportation and storage activities. The Company generateselectricity using coal, natural gas, and oil resources.

GENON ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Cheswick-Related Suit Dismissal---------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their class actionlawsuit relating to emissions from GenOn Energy, Inc.'s Cheswickgenerating facility, according to the Company's February 27, 2013,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the year ended December 31, 2012.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed againstGenOn in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,Pennsylvania, alleging that emissions from the Company's Cheswickgenerating facility have damaged the property of neighboringresidents. GenOn disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs havebrought nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claimsseeking both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek tocertify a class that consists of people who own property or livewithin one mile of the plant. In July 2012, GenOn removed thelawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania. In October 2012, the court granted GenOn's motionto dismiss, which Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc.-- http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary, and other energy services to wholesale customers in the energymarket in the United States. It also operates as a wholesalegenerator of electricity; and involves in asset management andproprietary trading, fuel oil management, and natural gastransportation and storage activities. The Company generateselectricity using coal, natural gas, and oil resources.

GENON ENERGY: Supreme Court Review Sought in Gas Prices Suit------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in one of the antitrust lawsuits over natural gasprices against GenOn Energy, Inc., filed in February 2013 apetition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, according tothe Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

GenOn is party to five lawsuits, several of which are class actionlawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevadaand Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of theCalifornia energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resultingFederal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") investigations andrelate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices inviolation of antitrust and similar laws. The lawsuits seek trebleor punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuitsalso name a number of unaffiliated energy companies as parties.In July 2011, the judge in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Nevada handling four of the five cases granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing all claimsagainst GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs have appealed to theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In September 2012,the State of Nevada Supreme Court handling one of the five casesaffirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for ClarkCounty, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn.

In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorarito the U.S. Supreme Court. GenOn has agreed to indemnifyCenterPoint Energy, Inc. against certain losses relating to theselawsuits.

Founded in 1982 and based in Houston, Texas, GenOn Energy, Inc.-- http://www.genon.com/-- provides energy, capacity, ancillary, and other energy services to wholesale customers in the energymarket in the United States. It also operates as a wholesalegenerator of electricity; and involves in asset management andproprietary trading, fuel oil management, and natural gastransportation and storage activities. The Company generateselectricity using coal, natural gas, and oil resources.

GRIPPO FOODS: Recalls All Sizes of Potato Chips Products--------------------------------------------------------Grippo Foods, Inc., in Cincinnati, Ohio, is initiating anationwide recall of all bags and boxes of their Plain PotatoChips, Bar-B-Q Potato Chips, Cheddar Cheese with a touch ofJalapeno Potato Chips, Hot Dill Pickle Potato Chips, Sweet BermudaOnion Potato chips and Salt & Vinegar Potato Chips. Theseproducts may have the potential to contain metal fragments.Consumption of foodborne foreign objects that are hard and sharpmay result in moderate or serious injury. Minor injuries such astransient choking, or small lacerations in the oral cavity orgastrointestinal system, as well as Dental injury, such as afractured tooth, may occur. While, serious injury is remotelypossible, it could involve severe choking with airway obstruction,perforation in the oral cavity or gastrointestinal system, orsecondary infection due to any of these events.

The recall includes the following: The bagged chips have anexpiration date of May 20 and before. The 1.5 pound boxes ofchips have an expiration date of April 29 and before. The datecode is located in the upper right corner of the package.

These products were distributed to retail markets in Ohio,Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois beginning September 15, 2012, untilMarch 14, 2013.

The firm voluntarily recalled the products after being notified bythe Ohio Department of Agriculture that there were metal shavingsfound in the salt applicator. FDA has been apprised of thisaction.

No injuries have been reported to date.

Grippo Foods, Inc. is notifying its distributors and customers.Consumers who have purchased these products should stop using andreturn to place of purchase for a refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company at 1-800-626-18249:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Monday throughFriday.

ILLINOIS: 3rd Suit Filed v. Madison County Over Bid-Rigging Scheme------------------------------------------------------------------Mike Fitzgerald, writing for News-Democrat, reports that a thirdlawsuit has been filed against Madison County seeking class-actionstatus in the wake of ex-Treasurer Fred Bathon's federal guiltyplea to rigging the county's annual delinquent tax auction.

Named as defendants are Mr. Bathon; Jim Foley, a former investmentofficer under Mr. Bathon; and Kurt Prenzler in his officialcapacity as county treasurer. Also named as defendants are thetaxbuyers Barrett Rochman, of Carbondale; Dennis Ballinger, ofDecatur; and Scott Sieron, Scott McLean and John Vassen, all ofBelleville, as well as the businesses they run.

Plaintiff Geralyn Lindow, of Alton, alleges that Mr. Bathon,during his last six years as treasurer, from 2004-09, conspiredwith his co-defendants to change the bidding process to require "aone time, simultaneous bidding -- a so-called 'no trailing bid'policy."

In addition, Mr. Bathon used a seating chart to ensure that thetax purchaser defendants were recognized by the auctioneer aswinning bidders. Mr. Bathon also directed Foley, the auctioneer,"to disperse the winning bids from the various auctions betweensuch tax purchaser defendants," according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Prenzler declined comment.

Mr. Bathon pleaded guilty in early February in U.S. district courtin East St. Louis to a criminal charge of rigging the tax sale sothat his political donors profited from inflated penalties paid byproperty owners. Mr. Bathon, according to his plea agreement,could receive a prison sentence of between 31 and 40 months,though his sentence could be reduced based on his cooperation withfederal law enforcement. Mr. Bathon's guilty plea, as well as thetwo other class action lawsuits, occurred more than two yearsafter a September 2010 series by the News-Democrat that exposedMr. Bathon's bid-rigging scheme.

The class action lawsuit was filed March 15 by St. Louis attorneyNelson L. Mitten on Lindow's behalf. Two other suits were filedearlier this month.

About $145,000 of that $55 million would go toward Odessa,Steve Wolens, a Dallas-based attorney representing the cities andformer Texas state representative, said on March 12. The paperswere filed on March 12 in the U.S. District Court of the WesternDistrict in San Antonio.

The lawsuit originally alleges six hotel booking Web sites --Hotels.com, Priceline.com, Expedia.com, Hotwire.com, Orbitz.comand Travelocity.com -- were not remitting all required hoteloccupancy taxes to the cities.

"The customers paid the tax the online companies just didn't remitit," Mr. Wolens said. "It comes out of the pockets of thecustomer. The online travel companies are not admitting they owethe money, but we are agreeing that if they owe the money, this isthe amount of money that would be due to each city under thecourts order."

When a person books a hotel room, online or in-person, they arecharged 13% in hotel occupancy taxes, and 7% of each transactiongoes toward the city, Odessa City Attorney Larry Long said.

That tax brought in about $4.8 million last year and about $2.9million in 2011, Mr. Long said.

"The tax is very important," Director of the Odessa Convention andVisitors Bureau Linda Sweatt said. "We use the tax to bring ingroups to Odessa."

Ms. Sweatt said the money goes toward everything from the OdessaCouncil for the Arts and Humanities to the Odessa Jackalopeshockey team.

"They break that money out and give it to different eventsbringing people into the community," she said. "That's the onlyway you can use that money."

Midland, Big Spring, Fort Stockton, Lubbock and San Angelo areamong the West Texas cities listed in the class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Wolens said the online hotel booking sites were remitting ahotel occupancy tax but only based on the retail price of a hotelroom, not the full price the online sites were charging.

"For example, if Expedia buys a room from the Marriott for $150then marks it up to $200 to the customer, the online company ismaking a $50 mark up," Mr. Wolens said. "So they're collecting$200 from customers, remitting $150 to Marriott and putting $50dollars in their pocket. The lawsuit is that they're collectingtaxes from the customer on the $200 but only remitting it on the$150 and putting the difference in their pocket."

Mr. Wolens said this lawsuit is only dealing with city hoteloccupancy taxes, not the 6 percent state tax.

"A really strong fact of the case is in 2002, the TexasComptroller ruled online hotel sites must pay taxes on the fullamount the customer pays on the room," Mr. Wolens said. "They(hotel sites) ignored that, only remitting taxes on the lower,host amount."

Mr. Wolens said next there probably will be post-judgment motionsfiled after the judgment is entered in April.

"We think there will be a request asking the court to makeamendments perhaps to the judgment then those will at some pointbe resolved," Mr. Wolens said. "It's a significant ruling andit's a lot of money to Texas cities, not only for past taxes owed,but the judge ruled these cities need to start complying."

INT'L PAPER: Still Defends Class Suits Over Containerboard Prices-----------------------------------------------------------------International Paper Company continues to defend itself againstclass action lawsuits over prices of containerboard products inIllinois and Tennessee, according to the Company's Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "In September 2010, eight containerboardproducers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, werenamed as defendants in a purported class action complaint thatalleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Thesuit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America(N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginningin August 2005 through November 2010, conspired to limit thesupply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. Thealleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard productsdirectly from any defendant for use or delivery in the UnitedStates during the period August 2005 to the present. The complaintseeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damagesand attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similarcomplaints were filed and have been consolidated in the NorthernDistrict of Illinois. Moreover, in January 2011, InternationalPaper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state courtin Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paperviolated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fixthe prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present.Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a classof Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products,damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company disputesthe allegations made and intends to vigorously defend each action.However, because both actions are in the preliminary stages, weare unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonablypossible loss."

INT'L PAPER: Unit Still Defending Suit Over Guaranty Financial--------------------------------------------------------------International Paper Company's subsidiary continues to defenditself against class action lawsuits related to Guaranty FinancialGroup, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012.

Temple-Inland is a defendant in a lawsuit captioned North PortFirefighters' Pension v. Temple-Inland Inc., filed in November2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern Districtof Texas and subsequently amended. The lawsuit alleges a classaction against Temple-Inland and certain individual defendantscontending that Temple-Inland misrepresented the financialcondition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period December12, 2007 through August 24, 2009. Temple-Inland distributed thestock of Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholders on December28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial Group was an independent,publicly held company. The action is pled as a securities claim onbehalf of persons who acquired Guaranty Financial Group stockduring the putative class period. Although focused chiefly onstatements made by Guaranty Financial Group to its shareholdersafter it was an independent, publicly held company, the actionrepeats many of the same allegations of fact made in the Tepperlitigation. On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filedmotions to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is fullybriefed and the Company is awaiting a decision from the court. TheCompany believes the claims made against Temple-Inland in theNorth Port lawsuit are without merit, and the Company intends todefend them vigorously. The lawsuit is in its preliminary stages,and thus the Company believes it is premature to predict theoutcome or to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any, whichmay be incurred.

INT'L PAPER: Suit Settlement Related to Bogalusa Incident Okayed----------------------------------------------------------------International Paper Company's subsidiary obtained preliminaryapproval in December 2012 of a proposed class action settlementrelated to the Bogalusa Incident, according to the Company's Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In August 2011, Temple-Inland's Bogalusa, Louisiana paper millreceived predictive test results indicating that BiochemicalOxygen Demand (BOD) limits for permitted discharge from thewastewater treatment pond into the Pearl River were exceeded afteran upset condition at the mill and subsequently confirmed reportsof a fish kill on the Pearl River (the Bogalusa Incident).

The Company states: "Temple-Inland (or its affiliates) is adefendant in 23 civil lawsuits in Louisiana and Mississippirelated to the Bogalusa Incident. Fifteen of these civil caseswere filed in Louisiana state court shortly after the incident andhave been removed and consolidated in an action pending in theU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alongwith a civil case originally filed in that court. During August2012, an additional 13 causes of action were filed in federal orstate court in Mississippi and Louisiana. In October 2012,International Paper and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, thegroup of attorneys appointed by the Louisiana federal court toorganize and coordinate the efforts of all the plaintiffs in thislitigation, reached a tentative understanding on key structuralterms and an amount for resolution of the litigation. Preliminaryapproval for the proposed class action settlement was granted inDecember 2012. In the interim, all civil litigation arising out ofthe August 2011 discharge has been stayed. We do not believe thata material loss is probable in this litigation."

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action---------------------------------------------------------Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 11 disclosed that aclass action has been commenced in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York on behalf ofpurchasers of ITT Educational Services, Inc. common stock duringthe period between April 22, 2010 and February 25, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than 60 days from March 11, 2013. If you wish to discussthis action or have any questions concerning this notice or yourrights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve aslead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose todo nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges ITT and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.ITT is a provider of post-secondary degree programs in the UnitedStates.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendantsissued materially false and misleading statements regarding theCompany's business and financial results in press releases,analyst conference calls and filings with the SEC, specificallywith respect to the Company's compliance with relevant accountingstandards when reporting its risk-sharing activities in loanprograms. As a result of defendants' false statements, ITT stocktraded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,reaching a high of $112.69 per share on April 22, 2010.

On February 22, 2013, after the market closed, ITT filed its Form10-K with the SEC for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.The Form 10-K disclosed that the SEC was investigating ITT'sinvolvement in some private student-loan agreements. ITT revealedthat it had received a subpoena from the SEC on February 8, 2013,along with a letter informing the Company of the investigation.The subpoena issued by the SEC requested documents related to a2009 loan risk-sharing agreement and ITT's PEAKS Private StudentLoan Program. As a result of this news, ITT's stock plunged $3.10per share to close at $15.53 per share on February 25, 2013, aone-day decline of nearly 17% on volume of over 1.7 millionshares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known bythe defendants but concealed from the investing public during theClass Period, were as follows: (a) the Company failed to properlyaccount for the 2009 loan risk-sharing agreement and its PEAKSProgram; and (b) the Company failed to maintain proper internalcontrols to ensure that risk-sharing agreements were properlyrecorded.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers ofITT common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff isrepresented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecutinginvestor class actions and extensive experience in actionsinvolving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-basedsecurities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers innine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management inexcess of $2 trillion.

LIVE NATION: Ticketmaster Still in Talks to Modify Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.'s subsidiary, Ticketmaster,continues to be in discussions over potential modifications tosettlement of Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation,according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in theSuperior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges toonline customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failureto disclose on its website that the charges contain a profitcomponent is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim forviolation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") andsought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection withonline ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) theamount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for deliveryof those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a firstamended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative classaction and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's websitedisclosures in respect of its ticket order processing feesconstitute false advertising in violation of California's FalseAdvertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeksrestitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of orderprocessing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicableperiod. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motionfor leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claimsthat (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionableunder the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practicesfurther violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to whichTicketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruledTicketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court grantedcertification of a class on the first and second causes of action,which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of aprofit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processingfees. The class would consist of California consumers whopurchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 topresent. The Court denied certification of a class on the thirdand fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster'sshipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high. InMarch 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate withthe California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motionfor reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certificationorder. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motionfor Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, andthe Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ ofMandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the plaintiffs'Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior Court tovacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion tocertify a national class and enter a new order grantingplaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first andsecond claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motionfor Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the SuperiorCourt, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion forSummary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted byTicketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion toDecertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreementproviding for the settlement of the litigation and the resolutionof all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined toapprove the settlement in its then-current form. Litigationcontinued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part anddenied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. Theparties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which wasapproved preliminarily, but in September 2012 the Court declinedto grant final approval. In doing so, the court identifiedpotential modifications to the settlement, and the partiescontinue to discuss such potential modifications and thepossibility of a revised settlement agreement. Ticketmaster andits parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged any violations oflaw or liability in connection with the matter.

As of December 31, 2012, the Company has accrued $35.4 million,its best estimate of the probable costs associated with thesettlement. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate andthe actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the finalsettlement amount; however, the Company does not expect thisdifference to be material.

MCDONALD'S CORP: Judge Extends Class Action Settlement Period-------------------------------------------------------------Joe Slezak, writing for Odessa American, reports that an attorneyupset over a class-action settlement involving customer deceptionat a Dearborn fast-food restaurant can speak his mind about thesubject again. And, because he spoke his mind before a judgeordered him to stop, the settlement period has been extended.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Kathleen Macdonald ruled on March 11that the settlement period for those who ate McChicken sandwichesand Chicken McNuggets that were advertised as halal but weren't attwo east-end McDonald's restaurants will be extended for another28 days. The time period started on March 11 and ends April 8.It was at Judge McDonald's request.

The new final settlement hearing will be at 10:00 a.m. April 17before Judge Macdonald.

"Halal" refers to meeting Islamic requirements for preparing food.God's name must be invoked before an animal providing meat forconsumption is slaughtered.

The class action suit covers anyone who ate the non-halal chickenat two McDonald's -- 13158 Ford Road and 14860 Michigan Ave. --since Sept. 1, 2005. They are believed to be the only McDonald'sin the country to serve halal chicken.

Ahmed Ahmed of Dearborn Heights sued McDonald's and franchiseowner Finley's Management Co. because he ate the falselyadvertised chicken at the Ford Road McDonald's. According to thesuit, the restaurant served non-halal chicken when it ran out ofhalal and didn't tell its customers.

The judge ruled Jan. 18 that McDonald's and Finley's must pay$700,000 to settle the suit. Mr. Ahmed was to get about $20,000;the Health Unit on Davison Avenue Inc. in Detroit, also known asHUDA, was to get about $274,000; the Arab American National Museumin Dearborn was to get about $150,000; and attorneys were to getabout $230,000.

Mr. Ahmed is being represented by Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group ofDearborn, with Kassem Dakhlallah as the lead attorney.

Attorney Majed Moughni, who had not been involved in the casebefore the settlement, posted on the Dearborn Area CommunityMembers Facebook page, which he runs, that he believed it wasunfair that most of the money would not go to those who ate theharam, or forbidden, chicken. He asked for page members who atethe food to leave contact information for themselves and otherswho ate the meat.

Mr. Dakhlallah filed a motion for injunctive relief againstMr. Moughni on Jan. 31. Judge Macdonald ruled in Mr. Dakhlallah'sfavor Feb. 7 and ordered Mr. Moughni to remove information aboutthe case from his Facebook page and put her original class actionsettlement order and her order against him on the page, which hedid. She also prohibited him from communicating with class actionlawsuit members and the media about the case without prior writtenpermission from her and Jaafar & Mahdi Law Group.

Before the March 11 hearing, Judge Macdonald held one hearing inopen court, in which attorney Steven Kiousis, representing"certain objecting class members," asked for more time tocommunicate with them and held a status hearing in her chambers.

Mr. Moughni did not attend either of those court dates, and alsowasn't in court on March 11.

On March 11, Macdonald heard a motion by McDonald's to lift theorder against Mr. Moughni because it said he was not acting as anattorney when he solicited feedback on the page and by Paul AlanLevy of the Public Citizens Litigation Group of Washington, D.C.,saying Mr. Moughni's First Amendment rights of free speech wereviolated.

The American Civil Liberties Union concurred with Mr. Levy.

Macdonald denied the motion to vacate the order againstMr. Moughni, but also said it was a moot point because she grantedMcDonald's request to extend the settlement period. She saidMr. Moughni can continue to identify himself as a class member,but can't identify himself as an attorney in his case.

"If he even insinuates he was acting like an attorney, he'll beback (before me)," she said, adding that Mr. Moughni identifiedhimself as an attorney and sent correspondence from his Dearbornlaw office in this matter.

Mr. Levy had argued that Mr. Moughni "expressed his opinion veryforcefully," but was speaking as a member of the community andwasn't soliciting clients. Mr. Levy said there is no evidenceMr. Moughni sought to be paid for gathering the feedback. Heinstead was rallying the community against a perceived injustice,according to Mr. Levy.

"He should be considered a hero," Mr. Levy said.

Mr. Levy said it would be different if Mr. Moughni urged thecommunity to pack Macdonald's courtroom or organized ademonstration outside the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center, homeof Wayne County Circuit Court's Civil Division.

"Moughni is a class member like any other class member, but he's alawyer and has a Facebook page," Mr. Levy said.

Kathryn Wood, an attorney for McDonald's, said Moughni made "falseand misleading statements to (the) class"; she also called hiscomments "outright false." She also said there is "ampleevidence" he "was clearly acting as an attorney," and even had oneretainer agreement.

Thomas McNeill, another attorney for McDonald's, said Mr. Moughniwas acting as an attorney, gave "grossly false and inaccuratelegal advice to the class" and said the injunction wasappropriate. Eric Conn, an attorney for Finley's, also called theinjunction appropriate.

Mr. Dakhlallah said the idea that Mr. Moughni was not acting as anattorney is "unbelievable, simply absurd." He said his firm is"very proud of this settlement. . . . It's a great settlement."

Judge Macdonald said Mr. Moughni isn't just an objector, and hecan't separate the fact he's an attorney. She also said shedidn't like that he called the settlement a "backroom deal" and a"slap in the face" to the community. "You don't get to say whenyou're an attorney or inject yourself," she said.

Mr. Levy countered that Mr. Moughni has the right to state hisopinion "through the marketplace of ideas."

As she was granting McDonald's request for the additional 28 days,which all sides agreed with, the judge said, "Because of thislawyer's action, the costs of resolving this case are spiralingout of control."

"We're taking about real dollars in the real world," saidMr. Dakhlallah, who estimated that about $30,000 would come out ofthe class action money to pay attorney fees because of theextension. He said fewer needy people would get care at HUDA andfewer students would get scholarships through the museum.

The firm also has the notice available in Arabic and Bengali.Questions about the settlement can be directed to Mr. Dakhlallahor fellow attorneys Michael Jaafar or Zakaria Mahdi at 1-313-846-6400.

Those who object to the proposed settlement, wish to intervene orwant to opt out if they're in the settlement class can mail awritten request to the court with a postmark by April 1 or hand-deliver it by April 8. Anyone who made a submission by Feb. 18,the end of the first notice period, doesn't have to respond again.

METLIFE INC: Appeal From "Haviland" Class Suit Dismissal Pending----------------------------------------------------------------Merrill Haviland, et al.'s appeal from the dismissal of theirclass action lawsuit against a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.,remains pending, according to the Company's February 27, 2013,Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the year ended December 31, 2012.

The lawsuit styled Merrill Haviland, et al. v. Metropolitan LifeInsurance Company (E.D. Mich., removed to federal court on July22, 2011), was filed by 45 retired General Motors ("GM") employeesagainst Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MLIC") and theamended complaint includes claims for conversion, unjustenrichment, breach of contract, fraud, intentional infliction ofemotional distress, fraudulent insurance acts, unfair tradepractices, and claims under the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 ("ERISA") based upon GM's 2009 reduction ofthe employees' life insurance coverage under GM's ERISA-governedplan. The complaint includes a count seeking class action status.MLIC is the insurer of GM's group life insurance plan andadministers claims under the plan. According to the complaint,MLIC had previously provided plaintiffs with a "written guarantee"that their life insurance benefits under the GM plan would not bereduced for the rest of their lives. On June 26, 2012, thedistrict court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint.Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States Courtof Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

METLIFE INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Remand "Birmingham" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------MetLife, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on the motion by theCity of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System to remand theCity's class action lawsuit to state court, according to theCompany's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering inMarch 2011, the plaintiff in City of Birmingham Retirement andRelief System v. MetLife, Inc. et al. (N.D. Alabama, filed instate court on July 5, 2012 and removed to federal court on August3, 2012), filed an action alleging that MetLife, Inc., certaincurrent and former directors and executive officers of MetLife,Inc., and various underwriters violated several provisions of theSecurities Act of 1933 related to the filing of the registrationstatement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,materially false and misleading statements and/or omissionsconcerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions ofdollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid tobeneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeksunspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendantsremoved this action to federal court, and plaintiff has moved toremand the action to state court. The defendants intend to defendthis action vigorously.

METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Westland" Suit in New York------------------------------------------------------------MetLife, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit initiatedby Westland Police and Fire Retirement System, according to theCompany's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,2012.

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,the plaintiff filed an action, captioned City of Westland Policeand Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y.,filed January 12, 2012), alleging that MetLife, Inc. and severalcurrent and former executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violatedthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue,materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife,Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurancebenefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or escheatedto the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damagesand other relief. The defendants intend to vigorously defend thisaction.

METLIFE INC: "Dolan" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in February-----------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit brought against asubsidiary of MetLife, Inc., was voluntarily dismissed last month,according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the yearended December 31, 2012.

Several plaintiffs filed the action titled Dolan v. Lawsky, et al.(S.D.N.Y., filed November 8, 2012), against the New YorkSuperintendent of Financial Services, Metropolitan Life InsuranceCompany ("MLIC"), and other parties alleging that the defendantsbreached fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and wereunjustly enriched through actions they took with respect to therehabilitation and subsequent liquidation of Executive LifeInsurance Company of New York ("ELNY"). Among other things,plaintiffs asserted that contracts entered into in 1992 betweenMLIC and the ELNY rehabilitator were improper. Plaintiffs soughtto represent a class of beneficiaries of ELNY structuredsettlement annuities who will receive reduced payments underELNY's court-approved liquidation plan. On February 6, 2013, theplaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice.

METLIFE INC: Hearing on "Roberts" Suit Settlement Set for April 9-----------------------------------------------------------------A fairness hearing for the approval of an agreement to settle aclass action lawsuit brought by Roberts, et al., and whichinvolves subsidiaries of MetLife, Inc., has been scheduled forApril 9, 2013, according to the Company's February 27, 2013, Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe year ended December 31, 2012.

The lawsuit captioned Roberts, et al. v. Tishman SpeyerProperties, et al. (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007),was filed by a putative class of market rate tenants at StuyvesantTown and Peter Cooper Village against parties including MetLife,Inc.'s subsidiaries, Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company("MTL") and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company has merged into MTL andno longer exists as a separate entity. These tenants claim thatMTL, as former owner, and the current owner improperly deregulatedapartments while receiving J-51 tax abatements. The lawsuit seeksdeclaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges. In October2009, the New York State Court of Appeals issued an opiniondenying MTL's motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendantsreached a settlement in principle with the plaintiff tenants,subject to finalizing the settlement terms and court approval. OnNovember 26, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the proposedsettlement, to include payment by MTL of $10.5 million intoescrow. Notice to class members was given on January 3, 2013, andthe court has scheduled a fairness hearing for April 9, 2013. TheCompany believes adequate provision has been made in itsconsolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonablyestimable losses for this lawsuit.

METLIFE INC: Still Awaits Judgment Bid Ruling in Keife Suit-----------------------------------------------------------The putative class action lawsuits involving a subsidiary ofMetLife, Inc., captioned Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan LifeInsurance Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010and removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v.Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3,2011), which have been consolidated, raise breach of contractclaims arising from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's("MLIC's") use of the Total Control Accounts ("TCA") to pay lifeinsurance benefits under the Federal Employees' Group LifeInsurance ("FEGLI") program. As damages, plaintiffs seekdisgorgement of the difference between the interest paid to theaccount holders and the investment earnings on the assets backingthe accounts. In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion forclass certification of the breach of contract claim, which thecourt has denied. On April 28, 2011, the court denied MLIC'smotion to dismiss. On May 4, 2012, MLIC moved for summaryjudgment.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 27,2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

METLIFE INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Sales Practices-----------------------------------------------------------Over the past several years, MetLife, Inc. has faced numerousclaims, including class action lawsuits, alleging impropermarketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the currentcases seek substantial damages, including punitive and trebledamages and attorneys' fees. The Company continues to vigorouslydefend against the claims in these matters. The Company believesadequate provision has been made in its consolidated financialstatements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses forsales practices matters.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 27,2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

METLIFE INC: Sun Life Seeks Indemnification for Suits in Canada---------------------------------------------------------------In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, as successor to thepurchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadianoperations, filed the lawsuit captioned Sun Life Assurance Companyof Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario,October 2006), in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC, asubsidiary of MetLife, Inc., remains liable for "market conductclaims" related to certain individual life insurance policies soldby MLIC and that have been transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life hadasked that the court require MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for theseclaims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the sale agreement forthe sale of MLIC's Canadian operations entered into in June of1998. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had giventimely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because itfound that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss,granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed.In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported classaction lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. SunLife Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), allegingsales practices claims regarding the same individual policies soldby MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class actioncomplaint in that case was served on Sun Life, again withoutnaming MLIC as a party. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notifiedMLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against SunLife in Vancouver, Alamwala v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct.,British Columbia, August 2011), alleging sales practices claimsregarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC andtransferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligatedto indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in theselawsuits. The Company is unable to estimate the reasonablypossible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 27,2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

MICHAELS STORES: Personal ID Info Class Action Can Proceed----------------------------------------------------------Tom Egan, writing for From the Bench, reports that a plaintiffconsumer may bring an action for violation of G.L.c. 93, Sec.105(a) without alleging a claim of identity fraud, the SupremeJudicial Court has ruled.

The SJC announced its holding in response to a question certifiedby a federal judge.

"We accept the judge's invitation to expand on this answer,however, and consider briefly the issue of what must be alleged insuch an action with respect to injury or loss," Justice MargotBotsford stated for a unanimous court.

"When a merchant acquires personal identification information inviolation of Sec. 105(a) and uses the information for its ownbusiness purposes, whether by sending the customer unwantedmarketing materials or by selling the information for a profit,the merchant has caused the consumer an injury that is distinctfrom the statutory violation itself and cognizable under G.L.c.93A, Sec. 9," the SJC concluded.

NISHIMOTO TRADING: Recalls Packages of Rice Cracker "Kotsubukko"----------------------------------------------------------------Nishimoto Trading Co., Ltd of Santa Fe Springs, California, isrecalling its 4.37 ounce packages of Kameda Brand Rice Cracker"Kotsubukko" snack food because they may contain undeclared milk.People who have allergies to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Therecalled Kameda Brand Rice Cracker "Kotsubukko" were distributedto state of California, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Chicago, and Hawaiiin retail stores from November 2012 to March 2013 and haveexpiration date as following:

The product comes in a 4.37 ounce, red plastic package marked withitem #63018 along with UPC Code 0-74410-63018-8 on the Englishlabel on the back of package. Pictures of the recalled products'labels are available at:

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with thisproblem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk-containing product was distributed in packaging that did notreveal the presence of milk. Subsequent investigation indicatesthe problem was caused by mislabel of milk ingredient.

Distribution of the product has been suspended until FDA and thecompany is certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased 4.37 ounce packages of Kameda BrandRice Cracker "Kotsubukko" are urged to return them to the place ofpurchase for a full refund.

NYSE EURONEXT: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suits in Del. & NY-----------------------------------------------------------------NYSE Euronext continues to defend itself against shareholder classaction lawsuits pending in Delaware and New York, according to theCompany's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On December 20, 2012, we entered into anAgreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") withIntercontinentalExchange, Inc. ("ICE"), pursuant to which ICE willacquire us through a merger of NYSE Euronext into Baseball MergerSub, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly ownedsubsidiary of ICE ("Merger Sub"). As a result of the merger (the"Proposed Merger") we will become a subsidiary of ICE (togetherwith NYSE Euronext, the "Combined Company"). The Proposed Mergeris currently expected to close in the second half of 2013.

"Following the announcement of the execution of the ICE-NYSEEuronext merger agreement on December 20, 2012, the first of eightputative NYSE Euronext shareholder class action complaints wasfiled in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delawarechallenging the proposed merger. On January 29, 2013, the Court ofChancery consolidated the Delaware actions under the caption In reNYSE Euronext Shareholder Litigation and appointed lead counsel.On February 1, 2013, the Delaware plaintiffs filed a consolidatedclass action complaint (the "Delaware Consolidated Action"). OnFebruary 15, 2013, the Court of Chancery entered an orderscheduling a preliminary injunction hearing on April 26, 2013.

"Additionally, on December 21, 2012, the first of four similarputative class action complaints was filed in the Supreme Court ofthe State of New York. The Supreme Court consolidated the New Yorkactions under the caption In re NYSE Euronext Shareholders/ICELitigation, and appointed lead counsel. On February 7, 2013, theNew York plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint(the "New York Consolidated Action"). Also, on February 5, 2013, asimilar putative class action complaint was filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York,captioned Young v. Hessels, et al.

"All of the actions name as defendants NYSE Euronext, the membersof its board of directors, ICE and Baseball Merger Sub, LLC("Merger Sub"), a Delaware limited liability company formed inconnection with the proposed merger. In all the actions, theplaintiffs allege that the members of the NYSE Euronext board ofdirectors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a mergeragreement that undervalues NYSE Euronext. Among other things, theplaintiffs allege that the members of the NYSE Euronext board ofdirectors failed to maximize the value of NYSE Euronext to itspublic shareholders, negotiated a transaction in their bestinterests to the detriment of the NYSE Euronext publicshareholders, and agreed to supposedly preclusive deal protectionmeasures in the merger agreement that unfairly deter competitiveoffers. ICE (and, in some of the actions, NYSE Euronext and/orMerger Sub) is alleged to have aided and abetted the breaches offiduciary duty by the members of the NYSE Euronext board ofdirectors. The actions also allege that the Defendants filed aninadequate and misleading preliminary proxy statement in violationof their fiduciary duties (and, in the federal court action,section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended).The lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) an injunction enjoiningICE and NYSE Euronext from consummating the merger and/or (ii)rescission of the merger, to the extent already implemented, oralternatively rescissory damages.

"In light of the substantial identity of parties and issues in theDelaware Consolidated Action and the New York Consolidated Action,on January 30, 2013 NYSE Euronext, certain of its directors, ICEand Merger Sub moved to dismiss or stay the New York ConsolidatedAction in favor of the first-filed Delaware litigation. The NewYork plaintiffs opposed the motion. Oral argument was held onFebruary 20, 2013 and the New York Supreme Court reserved decisionon the motion."

ICE and NYSE Euronext believe the allegations in the complaints inall of the actions are without merit, and will continue to defendagainst them vigorously. NYSE Euronext does not believe that anestimate of a reasonably possible range of loss can currently bemade in connection with these matters, given the inherentuncertainty and the preliminary stage of these matters.

The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed processconducted by the Individual Defendants, Ms. Feinstein alleges.She contends the consideration to Outdoor Channel's commonshareholders contemplated in the Proposed Transaction isinsufficient and is fundamentally unfair to her and the othercommon shareholders of the Company.

Ms. Feinstein is a shareholder of the Company.

Outdoor Channel is a Delaware corporation headquartered inTemecula, California. Outdoor Channel operates as anentertainment and media company in the United States, and operatesin three segments: The Outdoor Channel, Production Services, andAerial Cameras. The Individual Defendants are directors andofficers of the Company.

Kroenke Sports, a Delaware limited liability company headquarteredin Denver, Colorado, is one of the world's leading ownership,entertainment and management groups. Kroenke Sports is the ownerand operator of several sports teams and entertainment venues,such as the Pepsi Center, the Paramount Theater, Dick's SportingGood Park, the Colorado Avalanche (NHL), the Denver Nuggets (NBA),the Colorado Mammoth (NLL) and the Colorado Rapids (MLS). MergerSub is a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary ofKroenke Sports created for the purpose of consummating theProposed Transaction.

PIPER JAFFRAY: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, the SEC andvarious state attorneys general are conducting broadinvestigations of numerous firms, including Piper JaffrayCompanies, for possible antitrust and securities violations inconnection with the bidding or sale of guaranteed investmentcontracts and derivatives to municipal issuers from the early1990s to date. These investigations commenced in November 2006,and approximately six years ago the Company received and respondedto various subpoenas and requests for information. In December2007, the DOJ notified one of the Company's employees, whoseemployment subsequently was terminated, that he is regarded as atarget of the investigation. In addition, several class actioncomplaints were brought on behalf of a purported class of state,local and municipal government entities that purchased municipalderivatives directly from one of the defendants or through abroker, from January 1, 1992, to the present. The complaints,which have been consolidated into a single nationwide class actionentitled In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.1950 (Master Docket No. 08-2516), allege antitrust violations andare pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern Districtof New York under the multi-district litigation rules. Theconsolidated complaint seeks unspecified treble damages under theSherman Act. Several California municipalities also broughtseparate class action complaints in California federal court, andapproximately eighteen California municipalities and two New Yorkmunicipalities filed individual lawsuits that are not as part ofclass actions, all of which have since been transferred to theSouthern District of New York and consolidated for pretrialpurposes. All three sets of complaints assert similar claimsunder federal (and for the California and New York plaintiffs,state) antitrust claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 27,2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company says no loss contingency has been reflected in theCompany's consolidated financial statements as this contingency isneither probable nor reasonably estimable at this time.Management is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonablypossible loss for these matters because alleged damages have notbeen specified, the proceedings remain in the early stages, thereis uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes beingcertified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, andthere are significant factual issues to be resolved.

Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Piper Jaffray Companies --http://www.piperjaffray.com/-- is an investment bank and asset management firm, serving the needs of corporations, private equitygroups, public entities, non-profit entities and institutionalinvestors in the U.S. and internationally. Founded in 1895, PiperJaffray provides a broad set of products and services, includingequity and debt capital markets products; public finance services;financial advisory services; equity and fixed income institutionalbrokerage; equity and fixed income research; and asset managementservices.

STATE FARM: Windshield Repair Class Action Certification Upheld---------------------------------------------------------------Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES, reports that a State Farmcustomer who argued he and other customers should have receivedchecks for full windshield replacement rather than be givenrepairs had his class action certification upheld by the EighthDistrict Court of Appeals in the County of Cuyahoga, Ohio, withslight modification, according to court documents.

Michael Cullen, who is the class representative, claims hereported windshield damage to State Farm in 2003 and that hisclaim was handled by the company's subcontractor Lynx Services, asdescribed in court documents. After talking with this agent,Mr. Cullen agreed to a repair instead of replacement, but laterbrought suit against State Farm arguing he should have received acheck in full for the replacement value of his windshield, minusthe deductible.

In the case, Cullen v. State Farm, filed in 2005, Mr. Cullen'sattorneys alleged State Farm created a script that Lynx used tosteer claimants to opt into windshield repair rather thanreplacement. Mr. Cullen claimed the Lynx agent did not volunteerall options, and in particular, did not share a "pay-out" optionwhere claimants could get a check for the entire amount of thewindshield, minus the deductible, and then repair the windshieldat their own expense.

Mr. Cullen alleged breach of contract, bad faith and breach offiduciary duty against State Farm. He sought monetary anddeclaratory relief as well as class certification for otherssimilarly situated.

After the trial court decided that Mr. Cullen met all therequirements of class certification, State Farm appealed.

Writing the appellate court's prevailing opinion, Judge FrankCelebrezze Jr., says, "For claims handled using a common script orword track, the trial court did not err in certifying the class inthis case. Individual questions do not predominate because thescript used by Lynx and developed by State Farm establishes class-wide treatment under Mr. Cullen's theory that State Farm breachedits contracts with insureds by dissuading individuals fromreplacing their windshields and not informing them of their optionto receive a check for the value of the windshield less theirdeductible.

"For claims made prior to the use of a common script, Cullenargues that the policy language simplifies the case to a showingthat the policy in question required State Farm to restorevehicles to their pre-loss condition and that a windshield repaircannot do so. The theory, while dubious, does provide a means toresolve the case on a class-wide basis for these members.Therefore, the trial court did not err in certifying this class.However, the class definition must be restricted to exclude thosewho had their windshields replaced after repair. Finally, StateFarm has provided nothing to indicate that the trial court did notfulfill its duty to analyze the issues in the case when renderingits judgment," the judge says.

SWIFT TRANSPO: Continues to Pursue Appellate Relief in 2004 Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company continues to pursue appellate reliefin the 2004 owner-operator class action litigation, according tothe Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuitwas filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarlysituated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. SwiftTransportation Co., Inc., Case No. CV07-0472, or the GarzaComplaint. The putative class originally involved certainowner-operators who contracted with us under a 2001 ContractorAgreement that was in place for one year. The putative class isalleging that we should have reimbursed owner-operators for actualmiles driven rather than the contracted and industry standardremuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court deniedplaintiff's petition for class certification, the plaintiffappealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appealsissued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trialcourt's denial of class certification and remanding the case backto the trial court. On November 14, 2008, we filed a petition forreview to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of classcertification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion forReconsideration by the Court of Appeals. OnMarch 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted our petition forreview, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacatedthe decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court ofAppeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse thetrial court's original denial of class certification and remandedthe matter back to the trial court for further evaluation anddetermination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion forclass certification and expanded it to include all persons whowere employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted withSwift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in eachcase who were compensated by reference to miles driven.

"On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered anorder certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding theclass to include employees. Upon certification, we filed a motionto compel arbitration as well as filing numerous motions in thetrial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including,but not limited to the lack of an employee as a classrepresentative, and because the named owner-operator classrepresentative only contracted with us for a three-month periodunder a one year contract that no longer exists. In addition tothese trial court motions, we also filed a petition for specialaction with the Arizona Court of Appeals arguing that the trialcourt erred in certifying the class because the trial court reliedupon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned bythe Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court ofAppeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for specialaction and we filed a petition for review to the Arizona SupremeCourt.

"On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to reviewthe decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. During the month ofApril 2012, the court issued the following rulings with respect tocertain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion tocompel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify theclass; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach ofcontract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size basedon statute of limitations. We intend to continue to pursue allavailable appellate relief supported by the record, which webelieve demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and,further, that the claims raised have no merit. We retain all ofour defenses against liability and damages. The final dispositionof this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot bedetermined at this time."

SWIFT TRANSPO: Still Defending Misclassification Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company intends to defend itself in anyarbitration proceedings related to the owner-operatormisclassification class action litigation, according to theCompany's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuitwas filed against Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 andJoseph Sheer v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and InterstateEquipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.09-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York, or the Sheer Complaint. Theputative class involves owner-operators alleging that SwiftTransportation misclassified owner-operators as independentcontractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and thatsuch owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuitalso raises certain related issues with respect to the leaseagreements that certain owner-operators have entered into withIEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators havejoined this lawsuit. Upon our motion, the matter has beentransferred from the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York to the United States District Court inArizona.

"On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionallycertify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to thepotential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed amotion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift andIEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in defaultunder their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to compelarbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pendingthe outcome of arbitration. The court further denied plaintiff'smotion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional classcertification. The Court also denied plaintiff's request toarbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petitionfor a writ of mandamus asking that the District Court's order bevacated. On July 27, 2011, the court denied the plaintiff'spetition for writ of mandamus and plaintiff's filed anotherrequest for interlocutory appeal. On December 9, 2011, the courtpermitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their interlocutoryappeal.

"We intend to vigorously defend against any arbitrationproceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact ofsuch final disposition cannot be determined at this time."

The Company states: "On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit wasfiled by John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all othersimilarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: JohnBurnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift TransportationCo., Inc., Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court ofthe State of California, for the County of San Bernardino, or theBurnell Complaint. On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, thematter was removed to the United States District Court for thecentral District of California, Case No. EDCV10-00809-VAP. Theputative class includes drivers who worked for us during the fouryears preceding the date of filing alleging that we failed to paythe California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal andrest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation fromemployment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay ofproceedings pending determination of similar issues in a caseunrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which was then pendingbefore the California Supreme Court. An opinion was entered in theBrinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the BurnellComplaint was lifted.

"On April 5, 2012, we were served with an additional class actioncomplaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in theBurnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell, onbehalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SwiftTransportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift TransportationCompany, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court ofCalifornia for the County of San Bernardino, or the RudsellComplaint.

"We intend to vigorously defend certification of the class in bothmatters as well as the merits of these matters should the classesbe certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impactof such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined atthis time."

SWIFT TRANSPO: Continues to Defend Minimum Wage Class Suits-----------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself againstcertain California and Oregon minimum wage class actions,according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit wasfiled by Simona Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarlysituated persons against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v.Swift Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift TransportationCorporation in the Superior Court of California, County of SanDiego, or the Montalvo Complaint. The Montalvo Complaint wasremoved to federal court on August 15, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the matter was remanded tostate court and we filed an appeal to this remand. On July 11,2011 a class action lawsuit was filed by Glen Ridderbush on behalfof himself and all similarly situated persons against SwiftTransportation: Ridderbush et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. ofArizona LLC and Swift Transportation Services, LLC in the CircuitCourt for the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, or the RidderbushComplaint. The Ridderbush Complaint was removed to federal courton August 24, 2011, case number 3-11-CV-01028. Both putativeclasses include employees alleging that candidates for employmentwithin the four year statutory period in California and within thethree year statutory period in Oregon, were not paid the statemandated minimum wage during their orientation phase.

"On July 17, 2012, the parties involved in the RidderbushComplaint engaged in a voluntary mediation session in an attemptto resolve the matter in order to avoid litigation and mitigatelegal expense. In January 2013, the parties executed a settlementagreement whereby the entire matter has settled on a claims madebasis. The maximum amount to be paid by Swift shall not exceed$700,000.

"The issue of class certification in the Montalvo Complaint mustfirst be resolved before the court will address the merits of thecase, and we retain all of our defenses against liability anddamages pending a determination of class certification. We intendto vigorously defend against certification of the class as well asthe merits of this matter should the class be certified."

SWIFT TRANSPO: Still Defending Washington Overtime Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Swift Transportation Company continues to defend itself against aWashington overtime class action, according to the Company's Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuitwas filed by Troy Slack on behalf of himself and all similarlysituated persons against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et alv. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and SwiftTransportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,Pierce County, or the Slack Compliant. The Slack Compliant wasremoved to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number11-2-11438-0. The putative class includes all current and formerWashington State based employee drivers during the three yearstatutory period alleging that they were not paid overtime inaccordance with Washington State law and that they were notproperly paid for meal and rest periods. We intend to vigorouslydefend certification of the class as well as the merits of thesematters should the class be certified. The final disposition ofthis case and the impact of such final disposition of this casecannot be determined at this time."

SWIFT TRANSPO: Court Dismissed Arizona FCRA Class Action in Feb.----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the District of Arizonadismissed in February 2013 a class action against SwiftTransportation Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On August 8, 2011, a proposed class actionlawsuit was filed by Kelvin D. Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R.Bell, Jr. on behalf of themselves and all similarly situatedpersons against Swift Transportation Corporation: Kelvin D.Daniel, Tanna Hodges, and Robert R. Bell, Jr. et al. v. SwiftTransportation Corporation, in the United States District Courtfor the District of Arizona, case number 2:11-CV-01548-ROS, or theDaniel Complaint. Plaintiffs sought employment with SwiftTransportation of Arizona, LLC ("Swift Arizona") and that entityhas answered the complaint. The putative class includesindividuals throughout the United States who sought employmentwith Swift Arizona and about whom Swift Arizona procured acriminal background report for employment purposes during theapplication process. The complaint alleges Swift Arizona violatedthe Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). Among the allegations arethat Swift Arizona i) did not make adequate disclosures or obtainauthorizations for applicants; ii) did not issue pre-adverseaction notices for in-person applicants who were not hired inwhole or in part because of a background report that contained atleast one derogatory item that would disqualify the person underSwift Arizona's hiring policies; and iii) did not issue adverseaction notifications to applicants who were not hired in whole orin part because of a background report that contained at least onederogatory item that would disqualify the person from under SwiftArizona's hiring policies.

"In October 2011, in response to a partial motion to dismiss filedby Swift Arizona, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, towhich Swift Arizona answered in part, and after the court denied apartial motion to dismiss, Swift Arizona filed an answeraddressing the remaining allegations. On October 1, 2012, theplaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and motion forLeave to file a Second Amended Complaint. On October 5, 2012,Swift filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 11, 2013,the Court entered an Order denying plaintiff's motion for classcertification and the entire matter has been dismissed."

VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Dismissed From Claims in Insurance Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiff in the Citizens Insurance Litigation dismissed allclaims against Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary in November,according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On February 28, 2012, we were served with acomplaint filed in the Florida State Circuit Court for PascoCounty naming Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ("Citizens")and the Company's Xactware subsidiary. The complaint alleged aclass action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief againstdefendants and was brought on behalf of "all individuals who havepurchased a new or renewed a property casualty insurance policyfrom Citizens" where Citizens used Xactware's 360Value product todetermine replacement value of the property. OnMarch 12, 2012, plaintiffs served their First Amended Complaintadditionally alleging : (1) that Citizens and Xactware knowinglymade false statements to the plaintiff class concerning theirproperties' replacement cost values; (2) fraud against Xactwarebased on its alleged misrepresentation of the replacement value ofplaintiffs' properties; (3) conspiracy against Citizens andXactware based on their alleged artificial inflation of the valueof plaintiffs' properties; and (4) products liability againstXactware, claiming Xactware defectively designed 360Value as usedin the Florida insurance market. The First Amended Complaintsought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecifiedmonetary damages alleged to be in excess of $1,000 for the class.On May 31, 2012 plaintiff served his Second Amended Complaintwhich no longer alleged a class action, but continued to allege:(1) that Citizens and Xactware artificially inflated thereplacement cost value of plaintiff's property using 360Value; (2)fraud by Xactware; (3) a conspiracy between Citizens and Xactware;and (4) products liability against Xactware. The Second AmendedComplaint similarly sought declaratory and injunctive relief aswell as damages representing the difference between the premiumplaintiff paid to Citizens using 360Value and what the premiumshould have been if Citizens used an accurate replacement costvalue for plaintiff's property. Defendants' motion to transfer wasgranted and the case was transferred to the Leon County CircuitCourt on September 17, 2012. Plaintiff dismissed all claimsagainst Xactware on November 26, 2012."

VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Continues to Defend "Roe" Suit in Ohio-------------------------------------------------------------Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.,continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit pendingin Ohio, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On April 20, 2012, we were served with aclass action complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court inCalifornia naming the Company's subsidiary Intellicorp Records,Inc. ("Intellicorp") titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act("FCRA") and claimed that Intellicorp failed to implementreasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of theadverse information contained in the background reports, failed tomaintain strict procedures to ensure that criminal recordinformation provided to employers is complete and up to date, andfailed to notify class members contemporaneously of the fact thatcriminal record information was being provided to their employersand prospective employers. Intellicorp removed the case to theUnited States District Court of the Northern District ofCalifornia. The District Court later granted Intellicorp's motionto transfer the case, which is now pending in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On October 24,2012 plaintiffs served their First Amended Complaint (the "RoeComplaint") alleging a nationwide putative class action on behalfof all persons who were the subject of a Criminal SuperSearch orother "instant" consumer background report furnished to a thirdparty by Intellicorp for employment purposes, and whose reportcontained any negative public record of criminal arrest, charge,or conviction without also disclosing the final disposition of thecharges during the 5 years preceding the filing of this actionthrough the date class certification is granted. The Roe Complaintseeks statutory damages for the class in an amount not less thanone hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars perviolation, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. OnFebruary 4, 2013, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion toamend the Roe Complaint to eliminate the named plaintiff'sindividual claim for compensatory damages. This amendment did notchange the breadth or scope of the request for relief sought onbehalf of the proposed class.

VERISK ANALYTICS: Unit Continues to Defend "Thomas" Suit in Ohio----------------------------------------------------------------Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary Intellicorp Records, Inc.,continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuit titledMichael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp Records, Inc., according to theCompany's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company states: "On November 1, 2012, we were served with acomplaint filed in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiaryIntellicorp Records, Inc. titled Michael R. Thomas v. IntellicorpRecords, Inc. On January 7, 2013 plaintiff served its FirstAmended Complaint (the "Thomas Complaint") to add Mark A. Johnson(the plaintiff in the Johnson v. iiX matter) as a named plaintiff.The Thomas Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class actionfor violations of FCRA on behalf of "[a]ll natural personsresiding in the United States (a) who were the subject of a reportsold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b) that was furnished foran employment purpose, (c) that contained at least one publicrecord of a criminal conviction or arrest, civil lien, bankruptcyor civil judgment, (d) within five years next preceding the filingof this action and during its pendency, and (e) to whomIntellicorp did not place in the United States mail postage-prepaid, on the day it furnished any part of the report, a writtennotice that it was furnishing the subject report and containingthe name of the person that was to receive the report." The ThomasComplaint proposes an alternative subclass as follows: "[a]llnatural persons residing in Ohio or Tennessee (a) who were thesubject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b) thatwas furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that contained atleast one public record of a criminal conviction or arrest, civillien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five years nextpreceding the filing of this action and during its pendency, (e)when a mutual review of the record would reveal that the identityassociated with the public record does not match the identity ofthe class member about whom the report was furnished, and (f) towhom Intellicorp did not place in the United States mail postagepre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of the report, awritten notice that it was furnishing the subject report andcontaining the name of the person that was to receive the report."The Thomas Complaint alleges that Intellicorp violated the FCRA,asserting that Intellicorp violated section 1681k(a)(1) of theFCRA because it failed to provide notice to the plaintiffs "at thetime" the adverse public record information was reported. Thenamed plaintiffs also allege individual claims under section1681e(b) claiming that Intellicorp failed to follow reasonableprocedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparationof the consumer report it furnished pertaining to plaintiffs. TheThomas Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in anamount not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation,punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well ascompensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the namedplaintiffs.

The Company states: "On January 3, 2013 we received service of acomplaint filed in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiaryInsurance Information Exchange ("iiX") titled Mark A. Johnson v.Insurance Information Exchange, LLC (the "Johnson Complaint").The Johnson Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class actionon behalf of "all natural persons residing in the United Stateswho were the subject of a consumer report prepared by iiX foremployment purposes within five (5) years prior to the filing ofthis Complaint and to whom iiX did not provide notice of the factthat public record information which is likely to have an adverseeffect upon the consumer's ability to obtain employment, is beingreported by iiX, together with the name and address of the personto whom such information is being reported at the time such publicrecord information is reported to the user of such consumerreport." The Johnson Complaint alleges violations of section1681k(a) of the FCRA claiming that iiX failed to notify customerscontemporaneously that criminal record information was provided toa prospective employer and failed to maintain strict procedures toensure that the information reported is complete and up to date.The Johnson Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in anamount not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation,punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

VOLKSWAGEN AG: China Unit to Recall Cars With Substandard Gearbox-----------------------------------------------------------------Colum Murphy of The Wall Street Journal reports that VolkswagenAG's China unit said it would recall an unspecified number ofvehicles following scrutiny from China's national state-runtelevision broadcaster and after receiving a notification fromChina's quality watchdog.

In a joint statement issued Saturday, March 16, 2013, VolkswagenGroup China and its local joint ventures said they wouldvoluntarily recall cars suspected of having substandard direct-shift gearbox systems, which can cause acceleration problems andcar accidents for an unspecified number of consumers.

Volkswagen has been and will continue to fully cooperate with allrelevant authorities, said Christoph Ludewig, spokesman forVolkswagen in China. The Company would announce recall details ina later notice, he said.

The cars were featured on a Friday night broadcast from powerfulstate-run China Central Television that also criticized thecustomer-service practices of Apple Inc.

An Apple spokeswoman said it takes its customer serviceobligations seriously.

In the television program, Volkswagen models including Golf,Sagitar, Magotan and CC were cited as having faulty direct-shiftgearbox systems. These models are made by the German auto maker'sjoint venture company FAW-Volkswagen, according to Volkswagen'sWeb site for China.

After the show, the General Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine, or AQSIQ, urged Volkswagen in a noticeto issue a recall.

A person familiar with the Company's practices said it took stepsto upgrade software used in the cars since March 2012 and hadnotified car owners of the problems. Roughly 90% of affectedcustomers affected had been serviced, the person said.

In 2012, Volkswagen extended the warranty on the two types oftransmissions affected by the quality issue to 10 years from four,or 160,000 kilometers, whichever comes first.

On Saturday, March 16, 2013, state media cited AQSIQ spokesmanZhang Yuanping as saying the watchdog had been investigatingVolkswagen's transmissions since March 2012.

Specifically, the Biddixes, Mr. Kibiloski, and Ms. Ryan broughtthe action on behalf of all persons who have or had residentialmortgage loans originated and/or serviced by WFBNA/WFHM but ownedby Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (the Government Sponsored Entities orGSEs) who were required to purchase flood insurance coverage byWFBNA in excess of what is required by the owner of the mortgagenote. The Plaintiffs allege that the increased coveragerequirements had a deleterious effect on the borrower's ability tomake their monthly mortgage payments. Thus, the Plaintiffs allegethat the increased coverage was not in the interest of the GSEs orthe borrowers. This theory, the "excessive insurance theory," isat issue.

A copy of the District Court's March 14, 2013 Order is availableat http://is.gd/04iO4Gfrom Leagle.com.

WELLS FARGO: Challenges MedCap Ponzi Scheme Class Action--------------------------------------------------------Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, reports that Wells Fargo NAasked a California federal judge on March 11 to throw out aconsolidated class action alleging it breached its contract withnoteholders by disbursing their funds to Medical Capital HoldingsInc. in MedCap's $1 billion Ponzi scheme, arguing it wasn'tcontractually required to notify investors of irregularities untilthe accounts defaulted. At a hearing before U.S. District JudgeDavid O. Carter in Santa Ana, Calif., John W. Spiegel, a lawyerrepresenting Wells Fargo, argued that the bank was not liable.

ZIMMER HOLDINGS: "Dewald" ERISA Violation Suit Now Closed---------------------------------------------------------Zimmer Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its February 27, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2012, that the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Indiana declined to allow the plaintiff toamend a class action complaint; hence, the case is now closed.

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Indiana, Dewald v. ZimmerHoldings, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of itscurrent and former directors and employees as defendants. Thecomplaint related to a putative class action on behalf of allpersons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company'sU.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans)between October 5, 2007, and the date of filing and whose accountsincluded investments in the Company's common stock. The complaintalleged, among other things, that the defendants breached theirfiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmerstock as an investment option in the plans when the stockpurportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendantsfailed to provide plan participants with complete and accurateinformation sufficient to advise them of the risks of investingtheir retirement savings in Zimmer stock. The plaintiff sought anunspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive andequitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. OnJanuary 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint thatalleged the same claims and clarified that the class period wasOctober 5, 2007, through September 2, 2008.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint onMarch 23, 2009. On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel onMultidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring the Dewaldcase to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofIndiana. On December 23, 2011, the Court granted the defendants'motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 20, 2012, theplaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amendedcomplaint. On November 16, 2012, the Court denied the plaintiff'smotion for leave to amend the amended complaint and dismissed thecase with prejudice. The plaintiff's deadline to challenge theCourt's decision has passed. The case is now closed and theCompany will not be reporting the status of this matter in thefuture.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, development, manufacture, andmarketing of orthopedic reconstructive devices, spinal and traumadevices, dental implants, and related surgical products in theAmericas, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company was foundedin 1927 and is headquartered in Warsaw, Indiana.

* More Than 11,000 New Zealanders Join Bank Fee Class Action------------------------------------------------------------The Age reports that more than 11,000 New Zealanders haveregistered to join a class action against major banks to reclaimexcessive default fees. The Fair Play on Fees campaign hasattracted online sign-ups at a rate of 1000 per hour since it waslaunched on March 11. The legal action is being led by lawyerAndrew Hooker, law firm Slater & Gordon, and Litigation LendingServices.

Mr. Hooker says they didn't anticipate this sort of response fromthe public. "We now expect the Web site to register more than20,000 in the first 48 hours of the campaign," he said onMarch 12.

"We are very confident that on the back of these numbers we willbe able to file court documents within weeks."

At a press conference in Auckland on March 11, Mr. Hooker saidbanks were unlawfully over-charging their customers in dishonorand honor fees and late payment charges.

"Customers are charged an average of $15 every time they overdrawtheir accounts, pay their credit card late or bounce a check whenthe cost to the bank is actually just a few cents," he said."These fees are excessive and add up to around $1 billion over thepast six years."

By law, default fees must reflect what the actual cost is to theparty charging the fees, Mr. Hooker said.

According to Radio New Zealand, a banking analyst expects a bigresponse to the calls for New Zealanders to join a proposed classaction against the main banks though she says the litigation isunjustified.

Massey University senior lecturer in banking Claire Matthews isskeptical about the lawsuit. Dr. Matthews sees it as an attemptto generate some profits for those that are funding it and togenerate some interest amongst the public and get them involved.She said the basis of the claim is doubtful and it is not evidentsimilar action being taken in Australia will be successful.

"They're trying to take what they've gained there and simply applythat in New Zealand, without reflecting on the fact that NewZealand is actually different."

Dr. Matthews said despite the fact that the big four banks in NewZealand are Australian-owned, there are differences. She saidbanks in Australia have traditionally charged greater fees thanNew Zealand ones. Dr. Matthews said given the changes New Zealandbanks have made to fees in the last three and a half years it'sdifficult to see the justification for the case.

Gareth Vaughan, writing for interest.co.nz, reports that the "FairPlay on Fees" group behind representative legal action againstbanks over default fees say about 11,000 people have signed up fortheir campaign since it was launched on March 11 and they expectto be able to file court documents within weeks.

In a statement on March 12 the group, consisting of Mr. Hooker,Australian class action experts Slater & Gordon and litigationfunder Litigation Lending Services, say within the first sevenhours of their Web site's launch, more than 7000 people hadregistered at a rate of 1,000 per hour.

"New Zealanders are signing up more rapidly than the rateAustralians signed up to a similar class action campaign launchedin Australia (per capita basis). In the first 24 hours of thatcampaign 22,000 Australians had registered," they say.

Mr. Hooker says he hadn't anticipated such a response from thepublic.

"We now expect the Web site to register more than 20,000 in thefirst 48 hours of the campaign. We didn't expect these numbers onthe back of the Australian experience. We are very confident thaton the back of these numbers we will be able to file courtdocuments within weeks," says Mr. Hooker.

On March 11, the group said it was seeking to "claim backexcessive" bank default fees charged to customers over the pastsix years, which is the limitation period for such action."Exception" fees at the center of the case are what are known ashonor and dishonor fees, plus credit card late payment and creditcard over limit fees.

"Customers are charged an average of NZ$15 every time theyoverdraw their accounts, pay their credit card late or bounce acheck when the cost to the bank is actually just a few cents,"Mr. Hooker told a press conference at Auckland's SkyCity Hotel onMarch 11.

The New Zealand Bankers' Association responded to news of thelooming legal action by saying the group behind it failed to takeinto account differences between the New Zealand and Australianbanking sectors. It said three of the four fees being targetedhave been overseen by the Commerce Commission for 10 years, andcustomers concerned about fees should talk to their bank ratherthan to lawyers.

The parties behind the legal action stand to pocket 25% of any ofthe money won through their action, plus getting LitigationLending Services' costs of between NZ$3 million and NZ$4 millionback.

A Commerce Commission spokeswoman told interest.co.nz the consumerwatchdog did not know what legislation the so-called class actionwould be taken under. In 2010 the Commerce Commission said a latepayment credit card fee of up to NZ$15 was likely to bejustifiable on a cost recovery basis.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.